1. Mixablereality,Collaboration,andEvaluation
(S36:UserExperienceDesigninArchaeologyandCulturalHeritage)
Erik Champion, UNESCO Chair, Cultural Heritage & Visualisation
MCASI, Curtin Institute of Computation, Curtin University, Perth Australia
@nzerik erik.champion@curtin.edu.au

2. Abstract
How to avoid one hit AR wonders?
 scalable yet engaging content
 appropriate evaluation research
 stable tools, long-term robust infrastructure
essential
 Non-technical constraint: VR and AR/MR
preconceptions.
 WebVR and WebXR formats
 Two projects
 CMR: two HoloLens HMDs
 CVR: 2 people, 2 devices share + control 1 character

3. session themes
toconsider
 Critical thinking/reflection in design
 Experimental spaces
1. UX ‘success’ in archaeology/heritage? ‘Failure’?
2. Developing UX / UIs-moving past single narrative
and cultural presence approaches.
3. Unconscious choices in my design processes.
4. Clarification of values, mission, objectives and aims
https://theconversation.com/virtual-reality-adds-to-tourism-through-
touch-smell-and-real-peoples-experiences-101528
VR for therapy: scale, process

4. Criticalthinking-
wellIwroteabook
onit

5. ExperimentalSpaces

6. PhD 2001-4

7. VR cannot match real thing??
… the emotions you feel when you have a virtual experience are not as
valuable. When you actually see Niagara Falls, especially if you get up
close, you feel awe and even fear in the face of an overpowering force of
nature… Computer simulations, however good, contain only what
photography, laser technology and pre-existing expertise put into them…
Real experiences connect us to the deeds of past people and place us in
contexts where history was made… VR will never be a substitute for
encounters with the real thing.
Janna Thompson, Professor of Philosophy, La Trobe University https://theconversation.com/why-
virtual-reality-cannot-match-the-real-thing-92035
Sir David Attenborough re: Natural History Museum’s “Hold the World”
VR, provides a richer understanding of process, people can move and

8. Figure 2 User-Reality-Virtuality (URV) Interaction: Interaction between users, display technologies and the real world.
Mafkereseb Bekele
A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage
CulturalPresence?

9. https://alisonjamesart.com/2017/03/12/what-is-a-virtuality/
Milgram Takemura Utsumi & Kishino (1994)

10. AR: “Layered” (L) AR: “Embedded” (L)

11. Mixed reality
https://medium.com/@marknb00/what-is-mixed-reality-60e5cc284330

12. 3 promising trends
1. VR equipment is moving towards a consumer-
component based system.
2. Smartphone = stereoscopic viewers & PCs (Samsung
Gear).
3. Consumer technology frameworks will help improve
access..
WebXR or OpenXR in browser

13. Phone-based VR

14. Seated/standingVR

15. Walkable VR

16. Where, whom,
why, how and
what is learnt
 What is the goal? Why try to reach it?
 An engaging challenge? Involves
competition/mastery, chance, imitation,
controlling vertigo/rush of
movement/flight?
 Feedback system? Affordances,
constraints; rewards, punishments?
 Levels up/advance via mechanics?
 Does it offer different strategies?
 What is learnt during or after the
experience?

17. Duyfken, Mafkereseb Bekele

18. SS Xantho Steam Engine, Mafkereseb Bekele

19. Mafkereseb Bekele

20. Intern project Agathe Limouzy Toulouse (Collaborative Learning)

21. Summary
VR not just ”reality” interaction,
User Exp. crucial to VR/AR
Collaborative learning in MR:
promising but how to evaluate?
Cultural Presence difficult…
social presence easier
Few PhD projects on contested
heritage via communities
Erik Champion
erik.champion@curtin.edu.au
#nzerik

22. Erik Champion, Curtin University @nzerik erik.champion@curtin.edu.au